Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 5:50 PM
30 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,128 Year: 5,165/19,786 Month: 1,287/873 Week: 183/460 Day: 28/97 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
184185
186
187188189190Next
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2776 of 2847 (849623)
03-16-2019 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2774 by Percy
03-16-2019 11:14 AM


Re: Jorge Ramos asked Sanders & Hillary if EVERY child has the right to cross the border.
Percy wants to say I made up the issues that are at issue.
quote:

LamarkNewAge writes
quote:

The issue is about giving the undocumented/illegal immigrants the right to avoid deportation and to stay.

Percy writes:

quote:

That's just an issue you made up. The actual issue is that we should provide legal constitutional due process to those applying for asylum or refugee status, or to those who are in the country illegally.



The issue is about letting people stay.

Americans are actually supportive of letting folks stay once they get in(it depends on how the poll question is asked)

quote:

Which comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government -- [ROTATED: deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country, allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work, but only for a limited amount of time, or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time]?

2015 Jun 15-Jul 10

Deport all 19%

Remain in U.S. in order to work 14%

Remain in U.S. to become citizen 65%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx


quote:

Would you favor or oppose each of the following as part of legislation to address the issue of illegal immigration? How about -- Allowing illegal immigrants already in the country the opportunity to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time, including paying taxes and a penalty, passing a criminal background check and learning English?

National adults
2013 Jun 13-Jul 5

Favor 88%

Oppose 12%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx


The same polls have lots of conflicting answers though.

But the above quotes indicate support for allowing illegals to stay.

But this 2018 CBS poll shows more anti-immigration sentiment

https://drive.google.com/...0JXQmxVNi1la0IzX1o2X0RTZ09j/view

There was a new 2019 Gallop poll which shows that a record number support increasing immigration numbers per year.

It is the featured poll at the top (see Gallop link), with a timeline graph.

It is at 30%.

(the polling question was asked January 21-27 2019, but this 2019 poll lacks a secondary question which specifies preferences for LEGAL immigration numbers being increased like the June 1-13 2018 question asked)

The 2019 30% support was based on a raw question: "should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?"

The raw question, in June 1-13 of 2018, got 28% support for increasing but the secondary question, with LEGAL specified in the immigration numbers, brought the support for increase up to 34%.

The same month (June 2018)say Pew show a poll with LEGAL specified (Pew always specifies LEGAL immigration when asking the question)

http://www.people-press.org/...egal-immigration-into-the-u-s

The June 5-12 2018 Pew question saw almost identical numbers as the Gallop poll

Both June 2018 polls had 38% say "keep levels the same"

Pew had a 1% difference in those who wanted to decrease LEGAL levels (24% verses 25%)

Pew had 32% favor increasing legal immigration levels (34% in Gallop)

So we saw that Gallop, in June 2018, had 6% more support increasing yearly immigration levels when LEGAL IMMIGRATION was asked about verses a simple question about (unspecified with regards to legality of immigrants) immigration levels. 34% verses 28% support.

Now the January 2019 Gallop poll does not have the secondary question on LEGAL IMMIGRATION LEVELS, but the raw immigration level question finally broke 30% support for increasing.

Perhaps the support for increasing legal immigration levels could now have broken 35%?

I think it probably is, finally.

I expressed the wish that Democrats would start to favor increasing legal immigration (still well under 50% support among the party) as we get into the 2020 race.

My hope is that the question will be a part of the 2020 exit polls in November.

I hope 60% of Democrats will support increasing legal immigration (that would be ground breaking enough for 50% to do so), and Republicans stay at their current 22% level (or higher).

The 40% mark, for the nation as a whole would be a milestone.

The numbers of those who favor Open Borders seem to only slightly trail those who support increasing legal immigration a year (an 8-10% lower number).

(See CBS link for 24% support for Open Borders)

Can Democrats win with an Open Border position?

Minorities will soon (2024-2028) make up 35% of those eligible to vote.

70% support for Democrats, among minorities, would make 24.5% of the total vote to win a race.

That would mean whites, at 65% of the vote, would need to give Democrats 39.2% support to get enough total votes to break 50.0%

It is time to make the case for Open Borders

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2774 by Percy, posted 03-16-2019 11:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2777 of 2847 (849638)
03-16-2019 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2774 by Percy
03-16-2019 11:14 AM


I hardly know where to begin on Percy's Wall of b.s.
I will start with the most amazing load of crap he just said:

[quote]

LamarkNewAge:

quote:

The right to NOT be walled off by a border check is another issue. Democrats are on the record calling walls "racist", and we all know walls are just a symbol of borders.

Percy said:

quote:

Pelosi called Trump's wall racist, because Trump's racism toward non-whites from south of the border is why he wants to build it.

The slight of hand and b.s. speaks for itself. Do I even need to respond?

Hillary Clinton supported WALLS even after Trump announced his anti-immigration platform in the summer of 2015.

quote:

Is Hillary Clinton ‘Bragging’ About Building Border Wall, Keeping Out ‘Illegal Immigrants’? [VIDEO]

By Cedar Attanasio

Nov 10 2015, 03:21PM EST

“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,” Clinton said “and I do think that you have to control your borders.”

https://www.latintimes.com/...-out-illegal-immigrants-352631


[quote]

Hillary Clinton supported a barrier.

quote:

But why do you and Trump and so many Republicans have this obsession with Clinton, and with Obama, too?

Do you ever talk to Hispanic people (I am not)?

They know that Reagan and Bush (both Bush's) were pro-immigration.

Reagan and Bush 43 can be seen on video (from the late 70s and early 80s) saying Mexicans should be able to travel across the border (and back) without a VISA.

In the 1980 Reagan/Carter debate, Reagan defended illegal immigrants as being no different from the other Americans throughout history, coming to work and have a good life. He opposed deporting illegals. And he made it clear.

You have a lot of nerve telling somebody they can't look at positions of the party leadership.

quote:

Fourth, the comments you're talking about are from 2015, not 2014.

Fifth, nobody cares what Clinton said four years ago.


The CNN June 2014 interview was from 2014.

It was what made headlines.

(what are you even talking about, as most of my links were actually dated 2014 as anybody could see?)

Hillary supported Obama's policies.

As for 2018, Hillary Clinton angered many pro-immigration folks by going to Europe and telling the European governments to reduce (illegal and legal) immigration.

quote:

I was against Obama's deportation policies then, and I'm still against them. I think many people feel the same way.

Yet you don't want anybody to even comment on the policies?

Somehow, I doubt you cared too much, even if I grant you actually opposed them as you claim.

quote:

But everybody already knows deportations were higher under Obama than Trump. So what? A great many people are opposed to harsh or uncompassionate or non-due-process detentions and deportations, no matter who is responsible. This country's principles define it as a beacon of freedom and a refuge for the world's downtrodden. Slamming shut the doors while mistreating those who slip through is not who we are.

Actually, I have seen some studies that show Trump deported 30% more, per year, than Obama.

So what?

So what?

So what?

The fact that Democrats were super-duper anti-immigration back before Trump won in 2016 is a snoozer?

Are you sure you opposed Obama's policies?

(For the record, I feel Obama personally was more pro-immigration than his policies would indicate. Politicians just follow the electorate. I have more of a problem with non-politicians opposing immigration-rights, because politicians have to adjust their positions to get elected. Many Democratic politicians have to worry about their positions hurting fellow Democrats who must run in difficult districts and states, even if they can win in their own state/local electorate.)

"So what"?

quote:

Again, no one meant all walls are racist. It's Trump's walls that are racist because he wants to build them not because they're the best border security solution but because they're a symbol of that racism for his base.

Give me a break.

Republicans are actually more pro-immigration than they have ever been.

I actually have been looking at polls for a long time.

I actually know Charles and David Koch are for Open Borders (as Sanders was happy to point out when he defended his opposition to Open Borders), and always have been.

Ruppert Murdoch is very vocally in favor of Open Borders (he loudly talks about the issue, and recently he attacked his former country - Australia - for not having Open Borders)

The conservative Wall Street Journal made it clear that they supported Mexico's President in his call for Open Borders in 2001. I was supportive too. And at the very time.

(In 1991, I had a Mexican foreign-exchange student thank me for supporting Open Borders, when he heard me talk about it to a fellow high-schooler. We talked about newspapers, platforms, editorials, and other issues)

In 2009, I was very angry at Governor Patterson's decision to appoint Gillibrand to Hillary's seat. I was extremely vocal and would even have conversations with over a half-dozen police officers at once about it. Immigration was one major issue, but I was openly amazed (disgusted) that Patterson had the audacity (in 2010)to claim Cuomo supporters only supported the Italian American because Patterson himself was black. I was extremely vocal that he would appoint a young bloond-haired, blue-eyed anti-immigration individual, then try to make race an issue when the Democrats were disgusted with him.

(I was back in New York in 2010, not there at all in 2009)

I now love Gillibrand, because she NOW ADMITS she supported deportation of illegals due to a severe lack of empathy for others, and now deportation is seen as extremely bad policy by the junior Senator.

He appointment was actually one of the best things to have ever happened.

(I was just sick at the time though)

quote:

You're obviously getting your statements of what Democrats believe from Republicans. What Democrats want, what most reasonable people want, is appropriate border security for each stretch of border. Wherever we need walls we should build walls. We do not need walls along the Rio Grande because the river is already a barrier. Trump won't say that's where he's building his wall, but it's about the only place he can build it because the rest of the border where there's no river already mostly has wall or fence. When congresspeople visit the border to investigate where the wall will go for themselves do you know where they mostly go? Texas, because that's where the Rio Grande is. The river does kind of peter out in far western Texas where a wall is probably necessary.

Think this through for yourself. Do we really need a wall in addition to a river? Does it make any sense to wall ourselves off from our own river?


Is this how you talk to Republicans?

You tell them how much we need a wall?

I was always way far more confrontational on immigration (and not just with Republicans).

You really support a wall?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2774 by Percy, posted 03-16-2019 11:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2778 of 2847 (849639)
03-16-2019 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 2775 by Percy
03-16-2019 11:41 AM


PERCY and his immigration imagination.
quote:

You are a mess. You claim that "Clinton supported the detention of children back in the 2013-2014 period," then you support that with a quote from an article two years later in 2016 about deportation that doesn't mention detention once.

She supported what Obama was doing.

And "deportation" (or "deport" the children) was what she said.

(I admit that she talked about the issue as rarely as possible, and she in facts, always has to be pushed by the interviewers. She was a woman of few words on immigration, and finding specific sentences from her on all the component parts of the policy is difficult)

Deportation is as extreme as it gets though.

quote:

I'm for the same things I stated in my previous post: I'm for compassionate humanitarian treatment of all immigrants that follows due process.

Just like Trump but a little better, right?

quote:

I don't know if it's accurate or not, just that you're unable to support what you say. You just completely bollocks up your claim that Clinton favored detention by excerpting from an article that never mentioned detention.

Why are you trying to provide an accounting of the Democratic party evolution on immigration in the The Trump Presidency thread? Are you going someplace relevant with this? Maybe you need to find a different thread to do this.


I can assure you that the Democratic position (whatever it is)will be part of every debate and discussion about the Presidency. Trump will raise good questions about the Democratic position in the debates.

This immigration issue might be seen as utilitarian to many Democrats, but this is the issue of issues and it will be until we have Open Borders.

There is the Trump position.

Then there is the Democratic "position" (yet to be determined).

You want to debate which type of hard border we should have.

I am only in favor of a soft border, and really there are only 2 real positions:

1 Trump's hard border (which isn't any different from the post 1986 status quo)

2 A soft border.

quote:

El Paso is in far western Texas where the Rio Grande peters out. I would think they'd need a wall or fence or some kind of border security strategy there.

Beto actually supports taking down the El Paso wall.

(I hadn't kept up with his recent change of position, but just found out he flipped)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2775 by Percy, posted 03-16-2019 11:41 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2779 of 2847 (849640)
03-16-2019 4:10 PM


Percy asked me to show him the relevant text in the March 9, 2016 debate.
HC is Hillary Clinton
BS is Bernie Sanders
JR is Jorge Ramos

quote:

JR: Senator and Secretary, we’re going to take a break; and we’ll continue talking about immigration when we come back.

HC: Great, thank you.

JR: Secretary Clinton, the last time we talked, in January, in Iowa, I asked you if you could be the next Deporter-in-Chief; and you told me no, that you wouldn’t be the next Deporter-in-Chief. However, you have refused two times to say that you would not deport children. This is what you said. That you won’t deport children; and can you promise that you won’t deport immigrants who don’t have a criminal record?

HC: Here’s what I can promise, Jorge. I can promise that I will do everything possible to provide due process.

JR: But will you deport children?

HC: Let me say this, I would give every person, but particularly children, due process to have their story told; and a lot of children will, of course, have very legitimate stories under our law to be able to stay.

JR: So Secretary, you seem to be defending President Obama’s deportations policies. And as you know so far, he has deported more than 2.5 million immigrants. So if you really don’t want to be the next Deporter-in-Chief; can you promise tonight that you won’t deport children, and that you won’t deport immigrants who don’t have a criminal record? And this time, could I get a yes or no answer?

HC: Yes, you can because the questions you were asking me were about children seeking asylum, and we have laws. That was the most critical thing I said, under our laws. I would like to see those laws changed. I would like to see added to them a guaranteed council and other support for children. But if you’re asking about everyone who is already here, undocumented immigrants, the 11-12 million who are living here; my priorities are to deport violent criminals, terrorists and anyone who threatens our safety. So I do not have the same policy as the current administration does. I think it’s important that we move toward comprehensive immigration reform but at the same time stop the raids, stop the round ups, stop the deporting of people who are living here, doing their lives, doing their jobs and that’s my priority.

JR: But again, yes or no, can you promise tonight that you won’t deport children, children who are already here?

HC: I will not deport children. I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members either, Jorge. I want to, as I said, prioritize who would be deported; violent criminals, people planning terrorist attacks, anybody who threatens us. That’s a relatively small universe.

JR: So I want to be very specific. So you’re telling us tonight that if you become president, you won’t deport children who are already here?

HC: I will not.

JR: And that you won’t deport immigrants who don’t have a criminal record.

HC: That’s what I’m telling you. Now, I don’t want - because I’m not contradicting what I told you in the interview. Asylum is a particular legal process. I’d like to see it changed. I’d like to see us give more support to people who come fleeing the terrible violence that they do. But under our law we have a process we have to go through, which is different.

JR: So you would stop those deportations?

HC: I would stop—

JR: The deportations for children—

HC: Yes.

JR: —and those who don’t have a criminal record.

HC: Of the people, the undocumented people living in our country; I do not want to see them deported. I want to see them on a path to citizenship. That is exactly what I will do.

JR: Senator Sanders, can you promise us tonight that you won’t deport children?

BS: Let me just say this. I don’t think that the Secretary fully answered your question, and I think the proof may be in the pudding. Honduras and that region of the world may be the most violent region in our hemisphere; gang lords, vicious people, torturing people, doing horrible things to families. Children fled that part of the world to try, try, try maybe to meet up with their family members in this country, taking a route that was horrific, trying to start a new life. Secretary Clinton did not support those children coming into this country. I did. Now, I happen to agree with President Obama on many, many issues. I think he’s done a great job as President of the United States. He is wrong on this issue of deportation. I disagree with him on that. So to answer your question; no, I will not deport children from the United States of America.

JR: And can you promise not to deport immigrants who don’t have a criminal record?

BS: I can make that promise.

https://www.univision.com/...mocratic-debate-on-march-9-2016


This was the 2016 Hillary position.

Here was the relevant 2014 position

quote:

In 2014, journalist Christiane Amanpour sat down for a town hall interview with Hillary Clinton. Amanpour asked Clinton what the US should do about the thousands of undocumented, unaccompanied minors who were crossing the southern US border at the time.

Clearly uncomfortable, Clinton demurred. Amanpour persisted, asking point blank: “Should they be sent back?” After some additional dissembling, Clinton responded: “[W]e have to send a clear message. Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.”

However callous, Clinton’s answer wasn’t necessarily surprising. While such harsh stances often call to mind openly anti-immigrant Republicans like Donald Trump, the Democratic Party’s record on immigration issues is far from progressive.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/...s-hillary-clinton-barack-obama


2014 on CNN

“They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who the responsible adults in their family are because there are concerns about whether all of them can be sent back, but I think all of them that can be should be reunited with their families,” she said, adding that the United States must do more to confront the violence in the region and strengthen border security. “But we have to send a clear message that ‘Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean your child gets to stay. We don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”

Percy should email the pro-immigration leaders from my New York Post article if he cares about current interpretations of Hillary and Sanders.

https://nypost.com/...-no-idea-what-hillary-is-talking-about

Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute’s office at New York University School of Law.

Thanu Yakupitiyage, from the New York Immigration Coalition

Cristobal Alex, president of the Latino Victory Project


Replies to this message:
 Message 2780 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-16-2019 4:24 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2780 of 2847 (849641)
03-16-2019 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2779 by LamarkNewAge
03-16-2019 4:10 PM


Re: Percy asked me to show him the relevant text in the March 9, 2016 debate.
Here is the link to the New York Post article which has 3 pro-immigration experts attempt to interpret the March 9, 2016 Hillary Clinton liver entrail.

https://nypost.com/...-no-idea-what-hillary-is-talking-about

It was Bush 41 (not 43, as I said earlier) who can be seen on video agreeing with Ronald Reagan on Open Borders between Mexico and the United States.

Naturally, Reagan and Bush 41 were "elites", and not representative of average people in the United States.

(this is an example of where average people are wrong to oppose Open Borders)

Trump has severely attacked David and Charles Koch on immigration, essentially saying they don't represent Republicans, and are a "joke".

(Koch brothers are essentially Rand Paul types but pro immigration )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2779 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-16-2019 4:10 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2781 by Phat, posted 03-16-2019 4:42 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 2781 of 2847 (849642)
03-16-2019 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 2780 by LamarkNewAge
03-16-2019 4:24 PM


Re: Percy asked me to show him the relevant text in the March 9, 2016 debate.
Several questions.
1) What are "elites"?
2) Was Bush 41 and Reagan discussing NAFTA? Open borders in regards to trade but not literally?
3) What does George Soros think?

I am a political moderate. I see that some view Soros as evil and others view the Koch Brothers as evil. How many people see both as evil? (Rich people in general)
Based on that theory, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, two generous billionaires, are evil.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2780 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-16-2019 4:24 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2782 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-16-2019 5:00 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2782 of 2847 (849644)
03-16-2019 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2781 by Phat
03-16-2019 4:42 PM


Video evidence that Reagan and Bush wanted open Borders (Clinton did not)
https://latinousa.org/...nted-open-borders-and-clinton-didnt

https://search.yahoo.com/...dmlkZW8EdF9zdG1wAzE1NTI3Njk3Njc-

Ronald Reagan calls for an open border with Mexico, 1980 ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUXXw6xr4gI
During a 1980 debate with George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan called for illegal immigrants to get work permits and for the U.S. to have an open border with Mexico. Category People & Blogs

George H. W. Bush And Ronald Reagan Debate On Immigration In ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsmgPp_nlok
George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan answer a question from the audience about illegal immigration at a primary debate sponsored by the League of Woman voters and moderated by Howard K Smith in 1980.

When Reagan Wanted Open Borders and Clinton Didn't - Latino USA
latinousa.org/2015/10/06/when-reagan-wanted-open...
When Reagan Wanted Open Borders and Clinton Didn’t ... Here are two video clips from a 1980 Republican presidential primary debate. ... linking to the Reagan-Bush ...

Did Ronald Reagan Try for Eight Years to Build a Border Wall?
www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-border...
And open the border both ways by understanding their problems. This is the only safety valve they have with that unemployment that probably keeps the lid from blowing off down there.

Ronald Reagan Backed Open Borders & Amnesty - jimheath.tv
jimheath.tv/2019/01/ronald-reagan-backed-open...
The border, he said, should be open “both ways” — and border security policy should take into account the economic challenges facing Mexico. Here is the video of Reagan making the above statement:

You Will Not Believe How Reagan Talked About Immigration ...
thinkprogress.org/you-will-not-believe-how...
You Will Not Believe How Reagan Talked About Immigration During The 1980 GOP Presidential Debate ... between Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, ... of our mutual problems?” “Open the borders ...

Reagan's Shining City on a Hill Didn't Have 'Open Borders'
www.lifezette.com/2018/11/reagans-shining-city...
Reagan’s Shining City on a Hill Didn’t Have ‘Open Borders’ ... George W. Bush’s administration, Meese flatly declared that the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted ...

Ronald Reagan on Open Borders | Mary L. G. Theroux
blog.independent.org/.../09/29/ronald-reagan-on-open-borders
And open the border both ways by understanding their problems. Update: Here’s the video of the exchange between Bush and Reagan: Mary L. G. Theroux is Senior Vice President of the Independent Institute.

Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush on Immigration in 1980 ...
www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a41023/ronald...
Future president George H.W. Bush, some guy who never gets to talk, and the patron saint of modern conservatism, Ronald Reagan. From the get-go, you know this is not a 2016 debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2781 by Phat, posted 03-16-2019 4:42 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 2783 of 2847 (849715)
03-18-2019 7:21 PM


Too Damn Good
Yep, we're just too damn good for this world. We do what we want. Go suck it!

Who needs 'em


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14819
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 2784 of 2847 (849824)
03-22-2019 5:25 PM


The Mueller report is in
According to the BBC, it’s with the Department of Justice. It should make U.S. politics more interesting.
    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2063
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 2785 of 2847 (849825)
03-22-2019 5:27 PM


Barr has the Mueller Report
Robert Mueller Submits Report On Russia Investigation to Attorney General Barr

quote:
Attorney General William Barr received a report by special counsel Robert Mueller on Friday that summed up the findings from Mueller's investigation into the Russian attack on the 2016 presidential election.

Barr notified congressional leaders in a letter that said he is "reviewing the report and anticipate that I may be in a position to advise you of the special counsel's principal conclusions as soon as this weekend."

The letter was addressed to the leaders and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

Barr also says he intends to consult with Mueller and with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "to determine what other information from the report can be released to Congress and the public consistent with the law."



What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


Replies to this message:
 Message 2786 by DrJones*, posted 03-22-2019 5:32 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1819
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 2786 of 2847 (849826)
03-22-2019 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2785 by Tanypteryx
03-22-2019 5:27 PM


Re: Barr has the Mueller Report
given that there hasn't been an indictment since Stone I don't have my hopes up that this will deliver a killing blow to rump's presidency. My thinking is that if Mueller had anything substantial on the cheeto in chief but was following the DoJ's policy of "sitting presidents can't be indicted" that kush or one of the boys would have received indictments before the report was completed.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2785 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-22-2019 5:27 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2787 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-22-2019 5:44 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2063
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 2787 of 2847 (849827)
03-22-2019 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2786 by DrJones*
03-22-2019 5:32 PM


Re: Barr has the Mueller Report
This past 3 years since Shit-for-Brains announced he was running has lowered my expectations so far that I think he will get away with everything, no matter what it is. He has been doing a lot of his bullshit defiantly right out in the open. The republicans all think he shits chocolate syrup.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2786 by DrJones*, posted 03-22-2019 5:32 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2788 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2019 7:37 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 2788 of 2847 (849829)
03-22-2019 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2787 by Tanypteryx
03-22-2019 5:44 PM


Re: Barr has the Mueller Report
The republicans all think he shits chocolate syrup.

Well, he did bring them closer to the rise of the alt-right which appears to be an increasing source of votes in this country.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2787 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-22-2019 5:44 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18374
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 2789 of 2847 (849906)
03-25-2019 12:39 PM


The Barr Letter on the Mueller Report
The letter from Attorney General William P. Barr to ranking members of Congress summarizing the findings of the Mueller report can be found here: Barr Letter on the Mueller Report

Here is a very short summary of Barr letter content:

  1. The Mueller report concludes that Russia did interfere in the 2016 presidential election, both through a disinformation campaign by their Internet Research Agency, and though hacking of Democratic computers and emails by "Russian government actors."

  2. The Mueller report further concludes that there was no collusion by the Trump campaign with Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

  3. The Mueller report drew no conclusions concerning obstruction of justice, stating that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

  4. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." How they concluded that in a mere two days is not explained.

  5. Barr's "goal and intent" is to make as much of the Mueller report public as possible.

--Percy
Replies to this message:
 Message 2790 by 1.61803, posted 03-25-2019 12:54 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 2794 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2019 12:11 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2822
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 2790 of 2847 (849908)
03-25-2019 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2789 by Percy
03-25-2019 12:39 PM


Re: The Barr Letter on the Mueller Report
No collusion yet everybody lied when it came to talking to the Russians.
The obstruction question is still on the table even though the DOJ says he is exonerated. Congress is going to not let this go until every possible shred is looked at. Im glad Trump was cleared from collusion. I am not so sure he was not being obstructionist. So is this the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end.?

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2789 by Percy, posted 03-25-2019 12:39 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 2791 by Diomedes, posted 03-25-2019 1:21 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
184185
186
187188189190Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019